MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047548763 · doi:10.1093/brain/awu008

Cognitive declines after deep brain stimulation are likely to be attributable to more than caudate penetration and lead location

2014· letter· en· W2047548763 on OpenAlexaff
Takashi Morishita, Michael S. Okun, Jacob D. Jones, Kelly D. Foote, Dawn Bowers

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationCognitive declineSubthalamic nucleusCognitionCaudate nucleusPsychologyVerbal fluency testAtrophyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceNeuroscienceMedicineParkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseNeuropsychologyDementiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, We have read the follow-up paper from the German multi-centre randomized deep brain stimulation (DBS) trial (Witt et al. , 2013) with great interest. The authors conducted a study investigating the relationship between DBS lead trajectory and cognitive decline after surgery performed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. They concluded that penetration of the caudate nucleus was a risk factor for global cognitive decline, and that suboptimal placement of the electrode outside of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) also increased the risk of verbal fluency decline. These were interesting findings, however, we strongly suspect that these two issues make up only a subset of what is likely multiple factors affecting DBS cognitive outcome. The pathophysiology of cognitive decline in Parkinson’s disease is complex, and cognitive decline after STN DBS may be affected by baseline cognitive dysfunction, brain atrophy, and by surgical complications (e.g. intracranial haemorrhage). To more closely examine this issue, …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207